"my Savior Is Tougher Than Nails"

[PacMan]

Umm...to make the statement that pornography's bad, I don't know that it's necessary to post the picture of a naked person.

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

Of course not. In no way imaginable does the Savior using the instrument of his murder...as a barbell...during the single most sacred event in the history of humankind.. tivialize the suffering and atonement of Jesus Christ.

Oh by the way...does anyone think that the Savior used steroids?

Art would be another area of human culture that depends a great deal on personal preference and culture. I seriously doubt that the artist really thinks Christ looked like a WWF wrestler. I can definitely see how the picture would evoke thoughts and feelings of strength and power, even awe and reverence, even if I wouldn't put the same picture in my home. I've seen similar drawings come from youth members, who find them quite moving. It's a comic book-style picture, for a comic book crowd. Not my cup of tea, but not inherently blasphemous.

Take care, everyone

[Bsix]

Not my cup of tea, but not inherently blasphemous.

Six: I'm not sure that one can read the Bible and understand the nature of how God commanded reverence -- and received it -- and suggest that the sorts of pop-culture treatment of the sacred is acceptable to God.

Regards,

Six

[rhinomelon]

I'm not sure that one can read the Bible and understand the nature of how God commanded reverence -- and received it -- and suggest that the sorts of pop-culture treatment of the sacred is acceptable to God.

Okay.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the difference is between "pop culture" and "culture"? I'm just wondering here.

Take care, everyone

[Bsix]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the difference is between "pop culture" and "culture"? I'm just wondering here.

Culture...or popular culture, it makes no difference. Today's Protestants seem to take a position that God is common and that as long as a depiction of God pleases them it is acceptable. In other words, humans determine what is sacred...and each to their own.

It is my impression that in the Bible, God was awesome. He was so sacred that believers would not utter his name. They did not even create art of God because they were commanded not to...and out of respect. Now, all this was because believers reverenced him as much as God demanded this sort of reverential treatment.

The lack of reverence toward God is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with Protestantism. I believe that this sort of sacralige is a symptom of the apostacy.

Cheers,

Six

[rhinomelon]

Today's Protestants seem to take a position that God is common and that as long as a depiction of God pleases them it is acceptable. In other words, humans determine what is sacred...and each to their own.

I disagree with this characterization. Protestants do not believe God is common (far from it!); however, I would say that most Protestants believe that God is the God of the common man, in all his culture and diversity, ability and personality. Protestants try to take seriously the belief that everything we do, we should do for God's glory. What we do depends on many factors, including our culture and artistic preferences. There is no "one right way" to worship God, just as there is no "one right way" to be human. God created music and art and culture, and I don't see any reason why some art forms should be automatically excluded. Every single art form has its proponents and detractors. For example, my father and I both cringe at pipe organ music. I find it counteracts reverence for me, because it is so harsh and blaring. But LDS use it quite often, which is fine for them. Give me a piano and guitar ensemble any day!

It is my impression that in the Bible, God was awesome. He was so sacred that believers would not utter his name. They did not even create art of God because they were commanded not to...and out of respect. Now, all this was because believers reverenced him as much as God demanded this sort of reverential treatment.

They were commanded not to because of the great possibility of idol worship, and boiling God down to a graven image. Then along comes Jesus, and he is the image of God. Images of Christ and other Christian symbols go way back to the beginning of Christianity. And were the ancient Hebrews prohibited from saying any of God's names? He has many in the OT, and they are especially prevalent in the Psalms, the prayer/worship book for the entire people!

And like Pacman, I think how you see "reverence" as quite important in this discussion. I do not see reverence and artistic representations of Christ/guitars and drums music/dancing for joy as mutually exclusive.

Take care, everyone

[bluebell]

Art would be another area of human culture that depends a great deal on personal preference and culture. I seriously doubt that the artist really thinks Christ looked like a WWF wrestler. I can definitely see how the picture would evoke thoughts and feelings of strength and power, even awe and reverence, even if I wouldn't put the same picture in my home. I've seen similar drawings come from youth members, who find them quite moving. It's a comic book-style picture, for a comic book crowd. Not my cup of tea, but not inherently blasphemous.

Take care, everyone

what i take issue with, with this picture, is not the art (though it's not my style in the least) but that it is using the crucifiction of Christ as advertizement for a gym.

That seems like they are treating sacred things lightly.

[rhinomelon]

what i take issue with, with this picture, is not the art (though it's not my style in the least) but that it is using the crucifiction of Christ as advertizement for a gym.

That seems like they are treating sacred things lightly.

Ah, gotcha. If that were the case, I would have a problem with it as well. But I don't think it is advertising for a gym. I've seen shirts like this before, and I don't think there is actually a "Lord's Gym". It's more of a takeoff on similar shirts for other places. Like Old Navy or something, selling shirts with high school gym logos on them or something, even though Old Navy has nothing to do with athletics or anything. I had a shirt myself in high school that kind of spoofed the old Calvin Klein shirts, the ones with just the big "C" connected to the little "k". Instead of saying "Calvin Klein" coming off of that, it said "Christ the King". Silly, maybe, but not blasphemous. My LDS friends even liked it!

Take care, everyone

EDIT: I actually just looked up "Lord's Gym" online, and it turns out that it is indeed a real gym. In this case, I agree with most of you all, that this shirt is tacky and blasphemous. Christ should not be used as an advertising gimmick.

[rhinomelon]

I was actually reading up a little bit on this "Lord's Gym" thing, and found a comment by its founder that sheds some light on the balancing act that many mainstream Christians walk:

The gym is part of a national network of similar nonprofit centers that started in Roseville.

Doug Bird, senior pastor of Abundant Life Fellowship, founded Lord's Gym in 1986 "to move people closer to the Lord and to reach the lost at any cost," according to the organization's Web site. He opened the first Lord's Gym center in Roseville in 1994.

"Reaching the lost at any cost" is an illuminating statement, I think. Among mainstream Christians, and evangelicals in particular, there has always been a balancing act with regard to Christ and culture. In fact, Richard Niebuhr wrote a classic book about fifty years ago called "Christ and Culture", which laid out several different ways in which Christians of various stripes have looked at the relationship between Christ and the gospel, and the surrounding culture to which the gospel is directed and in which it is proclaimed. I found this illustration from the book which lays out the categories (sorry about the rather poor quality):

It's not an exhaustive summary, but it does provide a good starting point, I think. In the above summary, I think many evangelicals would fall under the "Christ the Transformer of Culture" model, with some "Christ Above Culture" thrown into the mix. Where would you say LDS would fall?

Just some food for thought here. I think the above graph sums up a great deal that lies between our two camps in this discussion.

Take care, everyone

[cdowis]

They were commanded not to because of the great possibility of idol worship, and boiling God down to a graven image. Then along comes Jesus, and he is the image of God. Images of Christ and other Christian symbols go way back to the beginning of Christianity.

May I ask you a question.

Acts 19 [24] For a certain man named Demetrius, a silversmith, which made silver shrines for Diana, brought no small gain unto the craftsmen;

[25] Whom he called together with the workmen of like occupation, and said, Sirs, ye know that by this craft we have our wealth.

[26] Moreover ye see and hear, that not alone at Ephesus, but almost throughout all Asia, this Paul hath persuaded and turned away much people, saying that they be no gods, which are made with hands:

[27] So that not only *******this our craft is in danger to be set at nought;***** but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth.

[28] And when they heard these sayings, they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians.

Could not Paul have simply explain to them that they could now make Christian icons of silver -- crosses and various other images? Their craft was not in danger at all.

What actually happened to "early Christianity" was that the heretics took over and the silversmiths simply went from Diana to Christian icons. Similar to accepting Constantine's support, the Christian church made compromises and did not seem to mind the price of apostacy.

Modern Christianity now allows modern idolatry to appeal to the masses and gain their acceptance, with the rational that "there are many ways to worship God", and "we are simply showing our talents." And, finally, "we must appeal to the young people."

Modern prophets tell us what is right and what is wrong.

Christians have a choice between "it does not matter" or "follow the prophets".

[rhinomelon]

Could not Paul have simply explain to them that they could now make Christian icons of silver -- crosses and various other images? Their craft was not in danger at all.

The craft was tied up in the Diana religion. I would also point out that Paul was not there to tell them what to do with their arts and crafts, but was there to preach the gospel of Christ contra all other religions, including the Diana cult upon which the silver craftsmen based their trade. This really has little to do with what we're talking about here. Arts and crafts are certainly not the issue in this passage.

What actually happened to "early Christianity" was that the heretics took over and the silversmiths simply went from Diana to Christian icons. Similar to accepting Constantine's support, the Christian church made compromises and did not seem to mind the price of apostacy.

CFR.

This is completely nonsensical. If making icons and artistic representations is now a sign of the apostasy, you'd better head on over to Temple Square and set fire to the Christus.

You can follow one of two paths, "it does not matter" or "follow the prophets".

Leaving all your caricatures of mainstream Christian thinking on the matter, I reject the above two options as the only ones available. I prefer to think more critically about the issue than either of these two options would allow. It does matter, and I'm not following someone's opinion uncritically, even if they do call themselves a prophet.

Take care, everyone

[Gervin]

Rhino - I know you're ready for post-grad work; Christ and Culture had to be one of the hardest books I've ever read. Man it was dense. He also wrote a great book that I've since given away about the church, its history, and how our faith is connected to the faith of the first believers. I'll have to look that title up. I've enjoyed this thread very much. /G

[rhinomelon]

Hey Gervin, once you find the title of that book you mentioned, would you mind posting it? It sounds quite interesting!

[Gervin]

Just looked it up: "The Meaning of Revelation" out of print but used copies available, per amazon

[cdowis]

This is completely nonsensical. If making icons and artistic representations is now a sign of the apostasy, you'd better head on over to Temple Square and set fire to the Christus.

You seem fond of obfuscating the issue that we are talking about the worship service, not an exhibit in a Visitor Center. We do not kneel before the Christus, give prayers, etc. The Christus is not an integrated into our worship, as it is in certain other deminations.

Yes, you could point out that we scream and shout at football games, but, unlike certain charismatic groups, this is not practiced in our sacrament meetings. There is a time and place for all things. David's dancing in the OT in celebration of a military victory is not a scriptural guide to have a dance in a worship service.

You seem unwilling to understand this basic principle.

CFR

Read the First Vision account.

[rhinomelon]

You seem fond of obfuscating the issue that we are talking about the worship service, not an exhibit in a Visitor Center. We do not kneel before the Christus, give prayers, etc. The Christus is not an integrated into our worship, as it is in certain other deminations.

Actually, we were talking about a particular T-shirt design, not a worship service. We were discussing visual art here, at least I was. If you were off on your own, pardon me for not following you. And which denomination has the Christus integrated into its worship in the fashion you so describe?

Yes, you could point out that we scream and shout at football games, but, unlike certain charismatic groups, this is not practiced in our sacrament meetings. There is a time and place for all things. David's dancing in the OT in celebration of a military victory is not a scriptural guide to have a dance in a worship service.

So I suppose the psalmist who encouraged the worshippers to "shout to the Lord" was simply giving instructions on proper football game etiquette? Also, while I would hesitate on using David's example as the basis for proper worship in a church setting, I would also point out that nothing about the example would lead one to believe that dancing is an unacceptable form of worship. In other words, while it doesn't encourage it, it does not discourage it either.

You seem unwilling to understand that difference between the two very different situations.

You seem unwilling to pay attention to what is actually being said in the discussion. Oh well I certainly do understand the difference between a football game and a worship service. Simply because certain behaviors may show up in both places does not mean that the same meaning or purpose is attached in both contexts. As I've said before, if evangelical services are to be seen simply as entertainment shows, then LDS services are simply funerals. You need to get beyond the externals in both situations if you want to understand what's going on.

Take care, everyone

[cdowis]

You seem unwilling to pay attention to what is actually being said in the discussion.

You may very well be correct.

[rhinomelon]

You seem unwilling to understand this basic principle.

Actually, I believe I understand it quite well. People simply apply the same principle very differently, depending upon many different factors (i.e. culture, personality, talent, more personal issues, etc.).

Read the First Vision account.

I don't see anything in there about art, icons, silversmiths or Diana. Care to be more specific?

Take care, everyone